After more than two years of political and economic crisis following a coup by Andry Rajoelina and some military officers, three-quarters of the people of Madagascar are living in poverty.
Since the March, 2009 takeover that drove president Marc Ravalomanana into exile in South Africa, the then 34-year-old nightclub-DJ-cum-mayor Rajoelina has regularly reneged on power-sharing deals signed between political parties.
He also blocked Ravalomanana from boarding an SA Airlink flight in February because he had declared him “persona non grata”.
He had promised to arrest Ravalomanana immediately and to imprison him for life if he set foot in the country as he had been convicted and sentenced for complicity in the fatal shooting of demonstrators, allegedly by his presidential guard, one month before he was deposed.
The main opposition parties, particularly those of Ravalomanana and two other ex-presidents, Didier Ratsiraka and Albert Zafy, refused to sign any deal unless the “enfant terrible” Rajoelina was reined in or at least forced to share some of his toys.
The last word from Southern African Development Community (SADC) leaders, mediating on the political stalemate, was given at their summit in Sandton on June 12. They decreed that Rajoelina be recognised as president of an inclusive and consensual govern- ment leading towards elections, if he allowed his predecessor to return “unconditionally”.
“Unconditionally” seems clear enough. But sadly not to Rajoelina; since the SADC’s June 12 declaration, the use of wordplay on the oft-forgotten Indian Ocean island has become bigger than the vanilla and lemurs it is famous for.
It started with Rajoelina, who on June 14, two days after the summit, didn’t quite reject the SADC’s decision.
But he tiptoed around it with panache, claiming no foreign power could force him to give amnesty for the “blood crimes” , for which a court under his regime had sentenced Ravalomanana to life in prison.
Military chiefs had said earlier they would use “all necessary force” to stop Ravalomanana from returning, just hours after being called in to see Rajoelina.
Certain ambassadors, including the French and Russian, were quick to parrot that outside forces could not mess with Madagascar’s “sovereignty” and denied mediation had failed, saying the SADC “unconditionally” had to stop at Madagascar’s shores.
Last Monday, SADC envoy and Mozambican politician Leonardo Simao met the country’s key players in the military and police and Prime Minister General Camille Vital for almost four hours. This prompted speculation that the SADC might be contemplating sending in a force to take on Madagascar’s military might to force Rajoelina to let Ravalomanana return.
The military had been paraded the previous day, with Simao in attendance, for the country’s 51st anniversary of independence.
The military was evidently not lacking in funds for shiny new cars and uniforms, despite defence ministry protestation that apart from a fleet of 4x4s bought in France recently, everything dated back more than 40 or 50 years, including the horses.
The celebration presented something of a diplomatic conundrum. Madagascar remains suspended from the SADC and the AU because of the March, 2009 coup and is more widely shunned. So most ambassadors, apart from those of the US and the EU, attended the military parade.
But South Africa’s ambassador, Mokgethi Monaisa, and Simao were absent from the lunch given by Rajoelina hours afterwards at a presidential palace.
France and Mauritius attended “to support the Malagasy people”, and the mediation process, though ostensibly not the government.
Simao scotched the SADC military intervention rumours firmly, saying the SADC did not have the power to quash Ravalomanana’s sentence or secure his passage back to Madagascar, both of those responsibilities being “sovereign”.
Apparently, then, “unconditionally” means that Ravalomanana will not be physically prevented from boarding any more planes and if he is greeted with police handcuffs and a rent-free room for eternity “this does not concern SADC”, which had “laid down the principle” of his coming back, but could not deal with the “practical questions”.
But “sovereignty” belongs to states with an effective and independent government, acting in the best interests of its citizens. Intervention should be justifiable on humanitarian grounds. Taking 20 million people hostage, an unelected and unrecognised government, propped up by military officers, is racing them towards 80 percent poverty levels last seen a decade ago.
With poverty increasing 9 percent in two years, “sovereignty” to Madagascar is about as relevant as the all-singing and dancing Disney films depicting an island paradise.
That Rajoelina be rewarded and recognised for sheer intransigence is questionable. The SADC’s laissez-faire attitude in defending his “sovereign” power after insisting on Ravalomanana’s “unconditional” return gives him a clear walk to another five-year tenure at the presidency. It also offers a shining example to citizens and other aspiring presidents that he who dares, wins big.
After the local press and Ravalomanana this week accused Simao of being in bed with “the illegal regime” and “certain countries” which had strong interests in it, Simao insisted that he and the SADC were on the same page.
He saw no inconsistency between his position and a June 17 statement from President Jacob Zuma and his Congolese counterpart, Joseph Kabila, that “noted with regret” Rajoelina’s refusal to obey the SADC’s decision to let Ravalomanana back. Nor with a letter from the SADC’s executive secretary and Mozambican politician Tomaz Salomao, which echoed those sentiments.
Simao evidently believes the SADC intervention is over as he foresaw a final signature ceremony of the power-sharing deal taking place by the end of this month, with or without the three main opposition movements, who were once considered vital to providing a “consensual and inclusive” transitional government leading to credible elections.
He said the all-important decision about whether to grant amnesty to Ravalomanana would be up to a transitional parliament, as would be the drafting of subsequent electoral laws ruling on candidates and conditions. But members of a temporary senate, installed by Rajoelina before his November referendum, have said the institution is a façade that might as well be dissolved.
They have said electoral laws are being thrust on them to pass, before they can judge whether amnesty laws create the necessary level of appeasement to hold them.
Prime Minister Vital has said “at least one election” will take place this year, presumably one for parliament, with the presidential election later. That defies the UN’s demands for an 11-month process, carried out with a “newly inclusive” government.
But Simao says the SADC supports elections carried out under UN supervision. Period.
Whether a transition excluding real opposition parties will be considered “consensual” and garner “international recognition” is doubtful, yet that is what is needed to end Madagascar’s suspension from aid and trade agreements with the EU, AU and SADC and countries such as the US.
Whether all of the SADC, and indeed all of Africa, is really speaking through Simao or in different tongues should become clear at the AU Peace and Security Council meeting today in Addis Ababa, where Simao says the SADC hopes to get approval for its proposal before asking key donors and the UN to support the government and elections at a meeting of the International Contact Group on Madagascar, also in Addis Ababa, tomorrow.
One can only hope dictionaries are on the table in Addis Ababa and a sole document is presented to solve the conundrum. Or at least let Rajoelina, who recently told Jeune Afrique magazine he would be president “now or in five years’ time”, or seemingly both, reject mediation flat out. That way the country can go back to the drawing board or replace his 27-month-old plaques. – Independent Foreign Service